Appeal No. 1999-0404 Page 19
Application No. 08/580,256
Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105, 1106-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1993).
In this case, Chiang does not disclose any one value
falling within the range set forth in either claim 2 or claim
3. Moreover, it is our view that a value falling within the
range set forth in claim 2 or claim 3 is not set forth in
Chiang with "sufficient specificity" to constitute an
anticipation.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 2 to 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
reversed.
Claims 7 and 8
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dependent claims 7 and 8 add to parent claim 1 the
further limitation that "convex deformed portions are formed
in each of said ribs to cause a refrigerant flow along said
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007